Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
That's a nice summary.
|
Thanks Ken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
Every time I hear explanations like this about how reality is behaving, it just strikes me as so overwhelmingly obvious that this is not "really" what reality is doing. It's just a model that works, and often works quite well, amazingly. But of course, it also breaks down at some point, simply because it isn't what reality is doing. This should neither surprise nor bother us-- science was never about understanding reality completely.
|
Of course they're models. The professionals and serious amateurs are well aware of it and are neither surprised or bothered by it. They are also able to use different pictures of the model to explore different possibilities. The problems usually crop up when those who don't realize they are models (which is a large percentage of people) try to fit "reality"(whatever that is) into these models. I would also point out that the general public are the ones who want a simplified explanation. Most can’t follow the math and the explanations of what is happening is all they have to go by, which sounds to them like it is reality. Those people usually end up mixing up the models or different views of the models to try and solve some perceived problem within the model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken G
We just have to at some point come to terms with our own limitations, and the limitations of science as a philosophical endeavor. As for building bridges and particle accelerators, it's great!
|
I would point out the applied science of building bridges and particle accelerators was, at some point, a limitation of science as a philosophical endeavor. That’s probably why I’m not all that thrilled (and really could care less) about the philosophy of science. I’m more interested in if a model works or doesn’t mathematically, how well it matches observations, and the predictive power of the model.